The Moral Cost of Video Games
PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND - In the controversial new video game "Manhunt 2," you're required to sneak up behind innocent victims, hit them over the head with a garden spade and then use that same weapon to decapitate, them. The whole thing is pretty graphic, because the game has, well, pretty graphics. As blood gushes, you're supposed to feel satisfied that you're ready for the next challenge.
- If you say so. Personally, I don't garner THAT much satisfaction from accomplishing menial goals in a video game. Then again, I don't exactly equate "finishing a mission" with "winning the Nobel Prize"
To some, this scenario captures everything wrong about video games. "They're too violent," detractors say. "And they glamorize violence. Children might be tempted to copy them." While this is an understandable concern, it misses more obvious problems with many video games today: primarily, an utter lack of moral consequence.
- [blink]
Countless studies have tested the alleged links between virtual violence and its real counterpart. Conclusions vary, but I certainly don't need a panel of academics to explain to me that the teen across the street isn't going to attack me with a garden spade.
- That's because those drawing those sorts of conclusions are godless liberal heathens who wish to destroy the fabric of our society. By glamorizing violence, video games perpetuate violent crime; something that's easily solved by putting more guns on the street.
Still, if you're a parent, the sheer intensity of violence in many games today ought to be a valid concern. You wouldn't let your children view online pornography, so why let them decapitate people in a video game?
- No, but why fuck it up for the rest of us? It's called "parenting." You don't want your kids watching online porn? Buy the software, restrict and monitor their usage, and TELL them why it's bloody wrong*
Yet many parents buy their children games rated inappropriate for anyone under 17. Why?
- Because they're frigging idiots that can't read the letter "M" and the guide of what that "M" stands for.
Perhaps it's a hangover attitude from the "Pac-Man" past, when all video games were presumed to be harmless fun. Or maybe they just want their kids to think they're cool. Whatever the reason, there's clearly a disconnect between the level of parental angst and parental tolerance.
- No. Parental idiocy. And something to scapegoat when their kid decides to be all mopey and emo and bring an AK-47 to school.
One of many dubious arguments against violence in video games is that children find it hard to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" situations.
- Because children are faulty beings, incapable of making such complicated distinctions. Look, unless your kid has some SERIOUS problems, that line between "reality" and "Hey, if I lob molotov cocktails into the mall, I'll get bonus points" is fairly distinct.
If that's true, is CNN not a more pernicious peddler of unsavory material for kids? When kids turn on the TV and see footage of soldiers shooting each other for real, is there any substantial difference between that and playing a first-person shooter game?
- THANK YOU, SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE.
Years ago, after the tragic shootings in Columbine, the news media were quick to lay blame at the game industry's door. Could they not as easily have turned that criticism on themselves?
- This is America. Nobody takes responsibility for anything, you blame someone else.
What's surprising about the media's obsession with violence in games is that it overlooks more serious lapses in values. By concentrating on the bloodthirsty and dramatic, they're ignoring influences that are much more harmful to children long term. Take, for instance, the idea of ruthless competition, that for every winner there are necessarily losers. Regardless of what game you're playing, the message is almost always the same: Do whatever it takes to win, even at the expense of everyone else.
- You know who else does that? Corporations. It's the American business mentality. You know who else tends to be good at that? Divorce attorneys.
Imagine if that were the moral of every movie and TV show you ever watched. Would the world be a better or worse place? Would you let your children play a game that promoted such a dog-eat-dog mentality?
- And yet we push our children to excel in everything that they do, whether it's academics or sports, inadvertantly driving some of them toward academic dishonesty and espionage to steroid and drug use. And SOMEHOW, violent video games are at fault for that.
Fundamentally, most games operate within a moral framework: good versus evil (or vice versa). But what games conspicuously lack is moral consequence. Once you've killed someone, stolen something, or blown up a building, that's usually the end of it - you'll rarely get to see the emotional impact of your actions on the characters around you.
- "Mario, the International Court of Justice finds you guilty of Goomba Mass Genocide, and sentences you to death by hanging in accordance to the laws of the Mushroom Kingdom." You mean those consequences?
Every bit of mayhem becomes just another item on a video-game to-do list. Games ignore moral consequence and emotional nuance to focus on the purely visceral.
- Umm, pardion the interruption, but aren't video games by design, in and of themselves, visceral? Why do people play games? Because they're fun; because we enjoy them. Last time I checked, I didn't play Titan Quest to examine the sociocultural nuances of the ancient world and contrast in depth the impact of my actions as pertains the pantheon of the Classical world.
There are only two types of decisions you can really make: the strategically correct one or the strategically incorrect one. There is no "right" or "wrong" - only success or failure.
- Again, the American corporate business model; there is only success or failure, defined by profit or loss. Right and wrong are sort of hazy.
Unbridled competition combined with no moral consequence eventually leads to a lack of compassion. And without compassion, humanity is lost.
- Again, business.
What games risk instilling, not just in kids, but in anyone who plays them, is a kind of sociopathy: a dearth of conscience. Whether this might be imitated outside of gaming is beside the point. What we should be asking ourselves is if we really want to spend ever more time playing things that encourage these values. That's a moral question, one that's easily sidelined in favor of simply having fun, but it's something we all must consider as the pastime grows more popular. I'm not calling for stricter regulation of the video-game industry. Rather, I hope to widen the debate to include issues that might not be considered if we believe the sensational, trivial hysteria of the media. By concentrating so heavily on the immediate (and short-term) effects of video-game violence, we're distracted from discussing more important moral dimensions. It's time for parents to stop asking what is appropriate for their children and to start asking what is morally right.
• Matthew Devereux writes about the video-game industry and is a former staff writer of Edge magazine.
- Here's the sad truth; I'm doing this commentary, not because I want to make fun of this article. Far from it, actually. To a fundamental degree, I can see what he's trying to do and to his credit, it's a well-formed sentiment. However, I don't necessarily believe that injecting this sort of moral/ethical implication into games is necessarily going to improve any situation outside of this sphere. Having children understand the difference between reality and fantasy is FAR more important than shoehorning an individual moral compass into a specific narrative. That's right, INDIVIDUAL moral compass. Regardless of what the establishment would like you to believe, morality IS relative. Ethics are absolute, morals are relative. And again, I wouldn't worry about video games driving our children into competitiveness, parents who (un)wittingly live vicariously through their children do a good enough job of that already. Video games simply provide an outlet where in the end, if their driven competitiveness doesn't get them critical acclaim, they can hit the reset button and try again. Frankly, kids nowadays have too MUCH to think about in real life; Let them HAVE a little corner of a fantasy world where all they have to do is kill the orcs and recover the gold, without having to extrapolate the ramifications of "Have I orphaned some poor little orc baby?"
* - You know, besides, "Because if you look up porn, God will send rabid pygmy marmots through the Internet, gouge out your eyes and piss in the sockets; it says so in the Bible."
- If you say so. Personally, I don't garner THAT much satisfaction from accomplishing menial goals in a video game. Then again, I don't exactly equate "finishing a mission" with "winning the Nobel Prize"
To some, this scenario captures everything wrong about video games. "They're too violent," detractors say. "And they glamorize violence. Children might be tempted to copy them." While this is an understandable concern, it misses more obvious problems with many video games today: primarily, an utter lack of moral consequence.
- [blink]
Countless studies have tested the alleged links between virtual violence and its real counterpart. Conclusions vary, but I certainly don't need a panel of academics to explain to me that the teen across the street isn't going to attack me with a garden spade.
- That's because those drawing those sorts of conclusions are godless liberal heathens who wish to destroy the fabric of our society. By glamorizing violence, video games perpetuate violent crime; something that's easily solved by putting more guns on the street.
Still, if you're a parent, the sheer intensity of violence in many games today ought to be a valid concern. You wouldn't let your children view online pornography, so why let them decapitate people in a video game?
- No, but why fuck it up for the rest of us? It's called "parenting." You don't want your kids watching online porn? Buy the software, restrict and monitor their usage, and TELL them why it's bloody wrong*
Yet many parents buy their children games rated inappropriate for anyone under 17. Why?
- Because they're frigging idiots that can't read the letter "M" and the guide of what that "M" stands for.
Perhaps it's a hangover attitude from the "Pac-Man" past, when all video games were presumed to be harmless fun. Or maybe they just want their kids to think they're cool. Whatever the reason, there's clearly a disconnect between the level of parental angst and parental tolerance.
- No. Parental idiocy. And something to scapegoat when their kid decides to be all mopey and emo and bring an AK-47 to school.
One of many dubious arguments against violence in video games is that children find it hard to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" situations.
- Because children are faulty beings, incapable of making such complicated distinctions. Look, unless your kid has some SERIOUS problems, that line between "reality" and "Hey, if I lob molotov cocktails into the mall, I'll get bonus points" is fairly distinct.
If that's true, is CNN not a more pernicious peddler of unsavory material for kids? When kids turn on the TV and see footage of soldiers shooting each other for real, is there any substantial difference between that and playing a first-person shooter game?
- THANK YOU, SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE.
Years ago, after the tragic shootings in Columbine, the news media were quick to lay blame at the game industry's door. Could they not as easily have turned that criticism on themselves?
- This is America. Nobody takes responsibility for anything, you blame someone else.
What's surprising about the media's obsession with violence in games is that it overlooks more serious lapses in values. By concentrating on the bloodthirsty and dramatic, they're ignoring influences that are much more harmful to children long term. Take, for instance, the idea of ruthless competition, that for every winner there are necessarily losers. Regardless of what game you're playing, the message is almost always the same: Do whatever it takes to win, even at the expense of everyone else.
- You know who else does that? Corporations. It's the American business mentality. You know who else tends to be good at that? Divorce attorneys.
Imagine if that were the moral of every movie and TV show you ever watched. Would the world be a better or worse place? Would you let your children play a game that promoted such a dog-eat-dog mentality?
- And yet we push our children to excel in everything that they do, whether it's academics or sports, inadvertantly driving some of them toward academic dishonesty and espionage to steroid and drug use. And SOMEHOW, violent video games are at fault for that.
Fundamentally, most games operate within a moral framework: good versus evil (or vice versa). But what games conspicuously lack is moral consequence. Once you've killed someone, stolen something, or blown up a building, that's usually the end of it - you'll rarely get to see the emotional impact of your actions on the characters around you.
- "Mario, the International Court of Justice finds you guilty of Goomba Mass Genocide, and sentences you to death by hanging in accordance to the laws of the Mushroom Kingdom." You mean those consequences?
Every bit of mayhem becomes just another item on a video-game to-do list. Games ignore moral consequence and emotional nuance to focus on the purely visceral.
- Umm, pardion the interruption, but aren't video games by design, in and of themselves, visceral? Why do people play games? Because they're fun; because we enjoy them. Last time I checked, I didn't play Titan Quest to examine the sociocultural nuances of the ancient world and contrast in depth the impact of my actions as pertains the pantheon of the Classical world.
There are only two types of decisions you can really make: the strategically correct one or the strategically incorrect one. There is no "right" or "wrong" - only success or failure.
- Again, the American corporate business model; there is only success or failure, defined by profit or loss. Right and wrong are sort of hazy.
Unbridled competition combined with no moral consequence eventually leads to a lack of compassion. And without compassion, humanity is lost.
- Again, business.
What games risk instilling, not just in kids, but in anyone who plays them, is a kind of sociopathy: a dearth of conscience. Whether this might be imitated outside of gaming is beside the point. What we should be asking ourselves is if we really want to spend ever more time playing things that encourage these values. That's a moral question, one that's easily sidelined in favor of simply having fun, but it's something we all must consider as the pastime grows more popular. I'm not calling for stricter regulation of the video-game industry. Rather, I hope to widen the debate to include issues that might not be considered if we believe the sensational, trivial hysteria of the media. By concentrating so heavily on the immediate (and short-term) effects of video-game violence, we're distracted from discussing more important moral dimensions. It's time for parents to stop asking what is appropriate for their children and to start asking what is morally right.
• Matthew Devereux writes about the video-game industry and is a former staff writer of Edge magazine.
- Here's the sad truth; I'm doing this commentary, not because I want to make fun of this article. Far from it, actually. To a fundamental degree, I can see what he's trying to do and to his credit, it's a well-formed sentiment. However, I don't necessarily believe that injecting this sort of moral/ethical implication into games is necessarily going to improve any situation outside of this sphere. Having children understand the difference between reality and fantasy is FAR more important than shoehorning an individual moral compass into a specific narrative. That's right, INDIVIDUAL moral compass. Regardless of what the establishment would like you to believe, morality IS relative. Ethics are absolute, morals are relative. And again, I wouldn't worry about video games driving our children into competitiveness, parents who (un)wittingly live vicariously through their children do a good enough job of that already. Video games simply provide an outlet where in the end, if their driven competitiveness doesn't get them critical acclaim, they can hit the reset button and try again. Frankly, kids nowadays have too MUCH to think about in real life; Let them HAVE a little corner of a fantasy world where all they have to do is kill the orcs and recover the gold, without having to extrapolate the ramifications of "Have I orphaned some poor little orc baby?"
* - You know, besides, "Because if you look up porn, God will send rabid pygmy marmots through the Internet, gouge out your eyes and piss in the sockets; it says so in the Bible."